Pages

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Killing spree

"There is, anyway, little historical evidence to suggest that a permissive attitude towards the killing of one category of human beings leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans. Ancient Greeks regularly killed or exposed infants, but appear to have been at least as scrupulous about taking the lives of their fellow-citizens as medieval Christians or modern Americans. In traditional Eskimo societies it was the custom for a man to kill his elderly parents, but the murder of a normal healthy adult was almost unheard of."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

1.Of course, this overlooks the additional fact that ancient cultures were generally warrior cultures. So the body count was quite high.

2.How does Singer know the murder rate among traditional Eskimos? Did they keep written records?

9 comments:

I've read that Spartans left infants to die by exposure if they were considered unfit. It is just as well-known that at certain times of the year, Spartan citizens were legally free to kill as many of the slave-class of citizens as they wished.

Both activities were undertaken in order to maintain the dominance of the Spartan citizenry and the suppression of the lower classes. Singer claims the greeks were careful about the lives of "fellow-citizens". But in some Greek cultures, "citizens" comprised merely 10% or less of the population.

Does Singer have any problem with a society denying basic human rights to 90% of its citizens, based on its own arbitrary criteria? If so, he shows no evidence of it.

In fact, the Spartan story merely buttresses Singer's assertion that there is "little historical evidence to suggest that a permissive attitude towards the killing of one category of human beings leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans", since the killing of large numbers of the helots did not lead to a breakdown on the restrictions against killing a fellow citizen. Whether Singer agrees with the specifics of Spartan culture is beside the point and has no bearing on the argument.

On the one hand, you assert that "the body count was quite high" in "ancient cultures". On the other hand, you attack Singer's claims because there are no written records of murder rates amongst traditional Eskimos. How can you fail to notice that your second point eviscerates your first point?

Under that definition, the Nazis are amazingly moral. They didn't murder any Aryans. Just Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and people with brown hair. But if you exclude them, why the Nazis were downright moral.

“In fact, the Spartan story merely buttresses Singer's assertion that there is ‘little historical evidence to suggest that a permissive attitude towards the killing of one category of human beings leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans’, since the killing of large numbers of the helots did not lead to a breakdown on the restrictions against killing a fellow citizen.”

Of course, Singer’s assertion is a face-saving maneuver, as if that’s an acceptable consequence of his position so long as a permissive attitude towards killing allows for some morally arbitrary restrictions.

“On the one hand, you assert that ‘the body count was quite high’ in ‘ancient cultures’. On the other hand, you attack Singer's claims because there are no written records of murder rates amongst traditional Eskimos. How can you fail to notice that your second point eviscerates your first point?”

I see that literacy isn’t your forte. What I actually said is that “ancient cultures were generally warrior cultures. So the body count was quite high.”

Did I classify the Eskimos as a warrior culture? No.

But we do have historical evidence for various warrior cultures of the past, viz. Assyrians, Aztecs, Japanese, &c.

Murder is often an isolated event, but—by definition—casualties in time of war tend to occur on a larger scale.

"In fact, the Spartan story merely buttresses Singer's assertion that there is "little historical evidence to suggest that a permissive attitude towards the killing of one category of human beings leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans","

But who cares if something buttresses an irrelevant, probably strawy man point.

As if anyone has argued that killing some humans necessarily leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans.

There's a recognized pheneomena called "honor among thieves."

So, that a bunch of elitists ban together and justify their ability to kill others means rather little.

Just as making some humans slaves doesn't lead to a breakdown of restrictions against making other people slaves.

And, we might merely have a disagreement of facts, not moral principles.

Slaves &c. may simply have been regarded "less than" fully human, in this case there would be continuity between the Greek society and ours.

Under that definition, the Nazis are amazingly moral. They didn't murder any Aryans. Just Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and people with brown hair. But if you exclude them, why the Nazis were downright moral.

Singer is not arguing that the Nazis were moral: he is arguing that permission to kill one or more category of human being does not lead to a breakdown of restrictions against killing human beings outside that category. If the Nazis had committed mass murder against Aryans, you might have had a point.

Dear Steve,

I see that literacy isn’t your forte.

You assume that I am incapable of understanding your point rather than that you are incapable of communicating your point. Perhaps it would be worthwhile reconsidering whether literacy is your forte.

Did I classify the Eskimos as a warrior culture? No.

To be strict, you didn't classify any cultures as a "warrior culture", and the only "culture" you mentioned were traditional Eskimos. As I said, I'm not certain that it's my literacy that's under question.

Moving swiftly on, it's irrelevant, since I didn't say that the Eskimo's were a warrior culture. My point was that if you are attacking Singer's argument because you think he lacks written records of their murder rates, then you're attacking your own point about warrior cultures because you lack written records of their murder rates (or the casualty rates of their wars, for that matter).

Now you might argue that there is written evidence - narratives, anecdote, and so forth - but that would be in the same category as any evidence as Singer might have about traditional Eskimo murder rates (and of course you have no idea what evidence he might be drawing upon).

Murder is often an isolated event, but—by definition—casualties in time of war tend to occur on a larger scale.

This statement also supports Singer's point. Killing on a mass scale is made acceptable in times of war - i.e. a permissive attitude is adopted towards people in the category of "enemy" - yet it doesn't lead to killing on a mass scale of every category of human being in that society.

Dear Paul,

But who cares if something buttresses an irrelevant, probably strawy man point.

Since he devoted a blog post to attacking the statement, it would appear that Steve does.

As if anyone has argued that killing some humans necessarily leads to a breakdown of restrictions against killing other humans.

Steve has. In a previous comment he stated that "It's a cumulative process" and cited with approval the writing of Wesley Smith, who argues that "For as soon as we accept killing as a legitimate answer to human suffering, it ceases to be a question of whether euthanasia practices will expand to accommodate the Nitschke/Kevorkian approach and becomes one of how long that process will take."

"Since he devoted a blog post to attacking the statement, it would appear that Steve does."

Was that Steve's point? Didn't Stedve even admit that Singer's claim was face-saving? Didn't Steve comment on *other* implications of Singer's claim?

"Steve has. In a previous comment he stated that "It's a cumulative process" and cited with approval the writing of Wesley Smith, who argues that "For as soon as we accept killing as a legitimate answer to human suffering, it ceases to be a question of whether euthanasia practices will expand to accommodate the Nitschke/Kevorkian approach and becomes one of how long that process will take."

That's not the support you're looking for.

Besides my Jed mind trick, I highly doubt the above implies we'd go out and start killing the intellectual elite who make such rules. Who's going to do the "relieving" if we kill *anyone* and *everyone*.

The above looks to me like the common "slippery slope" argument against euthanasia, which has some empirical support in some European countries.

The quote is about killing people who *suffer*. Killing some sufferers will lead to killing other *sufferers*. This is the active/passive euthanasia distinction that some argue will become, is logically is, blurred.

But killing other *sufferers* (however that is defined) doesn't imply that *anyone* and *everyone* is being targeted for killing - not the least of which the healthy intellectual elites deciding who gets to live.

So, I guess that means my question still stands, or you can just admit your post I responded to was rather pointless.

“You assume that I am incapable of understanding your point rather than that you are incapable of communicating your point.”

No I don’t assume, it observe it. You evidence your lack of reading comprehension.

“To be strict, you didn't classify any cultures as a ‘warrior culture’, and the only ‘culture’ you mentioned were traditional Eskimos. As I said, I'm not certain that it's my literacy that's under question.”

Yes, your reading comprehension is at issue. Why did I mention Eskimos in the first place? Was that my chosen illustration? No.

I referred to Eskimos because Singer referred to Eskimos. I was responding to him on his own grounds.

“My point was that if you are attacking Singer's argument because you think he lacks written records of their murder rates, then you're attacking your own point about warrior cultures because you lack written records of their murder rates (or the casualty rates of their wars, for that matter).”

Since you’re so slow on the uptake, I guess we’ll have to spell out every stupid little step of the argument for you before the light goes on.

Singer introduced the subject of Eskimos, not me. In the process, he made a claim about the murder rate among Eskimos.

I then made the point that since traditional Eskimo culture is, to my knowledge, a largely oral culture, it’s unclear how he’d be in a position to comment on the murder rate among Eskimos. What’s his source of information?

It’s not as if Eskimos maintained files on homicide statistics, like the FBI.

Does that commit me to the proposition that modern crime data is the only way to assess the level of violence for any particular society? No. I was answering Singer on his own grounds.

I’m struck by how many people, like yourself, are too dull-witted to grasp the nature of an internal critique.

I also pointed out that Singer was very selective in his illustrations. He used the example of the Eskimos to lowball the incidence of killing in pre-Christian cultures.

I responded to this by noting that Singer had chosen to ignore pre-Christian warrior cultures. By definition, a warrior culture will generate a high level of fatalities.

And we have a lot of archeological evidence on ancient warfare and warrior cultures, viz. murals, inscriptions, documents, weaponry, &c.

“Now you might argue that there is written evidence - narratives, anecdote, and so forth - but that would be in the same category as any evidence as Singer might have about traditional Eskimo murder rates (and of course you have no idea what evidence he might be drawing upon).”

i) Singer didn’t furnish any evidence, and there’s no reason for me to presume that he ever had any evidence to furnish. You tell me what kind of evidence he could be drawing upon. Feel free to show me the historical evidence for the murder rate among Eskimos between, say 1000 AD and 1500 AD. Where can I find the evidence for that?

ii) At the risk of stating the obvious, climate will affect what evidence could even be available.

iii) Environmental factors will also affect the military resources of a particular culture, as well as its military incentives. Human nature is the same, but the opportunities for its expression vary in time and place—which includes the scale of permissive killing.

“This statement also supports Singer's point. Killing on a mass scale is made acceptable in times of war - i.e. a permissive attitude is adopted towards people in the category of ‘enemy’ - yet it doesn't lead to killing on a mass scale of every category of human being in that society.”

Two problems:

i) You’re attacking a straw man. What did I originally say? Remember?

“It’s true that a permissive attitude towards killing one class of human beings does not automatically lead to wholesale slaughter. Rather, a more likely outcome, on Singer’s criteria, is the ruling class will exempt itself while killing members of the underclass with impunity.”

Did I deny every aspect of his statement? No. I challenged his example of the Eskimos. And KAFFINATOR’s Spartan example reinforces the very point I made: “the ruling class will exempt itself while killing members of the underclass with impunity.”

You act as if I denied something I never denied, which is another specimen of your illiteracy.

ii) At the same time, I also challenged his attempt to minimize the consequences of his position. Even if a permissive attitude towards killing doesn’t lead to everyone killing everyone else, that scarcely amounts to a moral justification of his position. But it’s the best he can do with a bad position.

This is a preemptive move on his part, to make it seem as if the consequences of his position aren’t all that bad since a permissive attitude towards killing doesn’t result in everyone killing everyone else. He could hardly set the bar any lower for himself.

“Steve has. In a previous comment he stated that “It's a cumulative process’ and cited with approval the writing of Wesley Smith, who argues that ‘For as soon as we accept killing as a legitimate answer to human suffering, it ceases to be a question of whether euthanasia practices will expand to accommodate the Nitschke/Kevorkian approach and becomes one of how long that process will take’."

You equivocate by willfully refusing to draw elementary distinctions between some, more, and all.

Did I argue that abortion leads to everyone killing everyone else? No.

The argument, rather, is that if you start with abortion, you will eventually extend that principle to other “undesirables.” And that’s exactly what happens.

In the initial stages of their eugenic agenda, the death-mongers pretend that prolife rhetoric is “alarmist.” The death-mongers know that they have to proceed incrementally. Once abortion is established, they can move to the next phase in their eugenic agenda.

Do they intend to kill everyone, including themselves? No. This is about social control. A power trip. The elite will determine who lives and who dies.

Paul C. said:---Singer is not arguing that the Nazis were moral: he is arguing that permission to kill one or more category of human being does not lead to a breakdown of restrictions against killing human beings outside that category.---

And that's about as relevant as saying, "Just because John Wilkes Booth decided he had permission to kill one or more category of human being does not lead to a breakdwon of restrictions against killing human beings outside that category." In other words, it's a stupid and irrelevant distinction.